Sometimes, I get these little quirky “feelings” I must post something specific. Maybe this is for you. There is a ton of other information regarding this topic specifically, but it was one of my secret ingredients in my research for my own case. I just recommend you read about this topic as much as you can. Be reminded that Dependency Court is not civil court although some legal folks would suggest so. I am not an attorney, but I lived and experienced this myself. Dependency court is more like Criminal court and that is what A LOT of legal folks told me. Cost of legal fees alone can prove that. But anyway, the thing was that the whole time my judge carried out my 10-month long trial, the whole time they probably had less than 1% of “evidence” against me, and even then, the 1% would have been “less than” that percentage because the “evidence” against me consisted of “reports”, or “hearsay”, that was sadly based on other “reports” and “hearsay”. What a joke right? Well, not really.

You see, what gets you in court, especially if you’ve never been, is the intimidation. The prosecutors (yes, they are “State” prosecutors – straight out of law school if you are lucky, cuz they suck, and yes, there may be more than one you are up against) will dress up the entire case against you, “as if” they have all this stuff on you. But the TRUTH is, if you have not done anything wrong, then they have nothing! You can count on false or incorrect reports being presented, and you will need to endure weeks or months of the prosecution presenting all of these lies and mistakes before you can even correct or clarify them because when the state goes after you, they get to go first in court presentation. That is a very tough thing to do when they want you to lose your mind and cuss them out in court so you can be arrested so that they at least can get you on that. Mind games and more mind games. But again, that only works if you have never been to trial before, which explains how losers like Lindsey Lohan get away with stuff because they already know what they can and cannot say in court.

But anyway, back to this P of P…it is also a very sick level of evidence. You see, this pretty much suggests that if the judge is 50/50 sure you are a risk, the 1% will make him/her use their wild card, or “coward” card as I refer to it, and “air in the side of caution” and side in favor of the state. An alleged “criminal”, like a serial rapist, child-torturer, etc….well he/she gets to have a “jury”, or a set of eyes and ears that is not looking out for a mafia government agency, and gets to have them decide on a “beyond a reasonable doubt” level, or “without a doubt – 100% sure”. Plus they get double-jeopardy. Just lovely, isn’t it?

I hope that this topic at least helps some of those folks who are in similar situations as I was and clearly have a B.S. case against them so that you can maneuver through your trial and hopefully not have such a long one. The judge in my case said my case’s length was “unusual”. Based on cases I’ve followed, it appears that the average dependency trial averages 3 months max, possibly influenced by TPR (Termination of Parental Rights) limitation rules.

A requirement that more then 50% of the evidence points to something. This is the burden of proof in a civil trial.

For example: At the end of civil case A v. B, 51% of the evidence favors A. Thus, A has a preponderance of the evidence, A has met their burden of proof, and A will win the case.

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

The burden of proof required in a civil (non-criminal) action to convince the court that a given proposition is true. The plaintiff must convince the judge or jury by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff’s version is true — that is, over 50% of the believable evidence is in the plaintiff’s favor. Compare: reasonable doubt